He spends the time in the text testing various containers - money, power, sex, etc - finding everything wanting

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977441)

But the problems it deals with are a constant part of being alive

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977449)

I’ll be writing about it soon

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977451)

the oscillation in Ecclesiastes that has puzzled commentators from the rabbinic debates at Jamnia to Bartholomew’s modern analysis is the phenomenological record of someone performing the crucifixion of opposites under a god-image that contains evil but lacks the vocabulary to name what it contains. Each time Qohelet finds a provisional foothold (wisdom is better than folly, enjoyment is a gift, companionship has value) he immediately tests it against the structural reality he has observed and finds it insufficient. The foothold is real but it cannot hold the weight of a condition that admits no permanent resolution. Every available interpretive framework (orthodox Jewish, Christian, secular academic) requires the oscillation to resolve in a direction it never takes: the religious Jewish reader needs it to end in “fear God and keep the commandments", the Christian reader needs it to end in Christ, the secular pessimist reader needs it to be a cry of despair, the academic structuralist catalogs its polar opposites without asking what generates them, but none of these readings can sit still in the oscillation itself. The Abraxian framework can, because it has a name for the structural condition Qohelet is navigating without being able to name.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977500)

if of interest, see here:

https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-collapse-of-the-all-good-god

and here:

https://livingopposites.substack.com/p/the-formal-logic-of-the-crucifixion

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977613)

or are you making a different claim that "god" is an objective thing out there which just so happens to be good and evil.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977615)

but the god image doesn't have to be a god figure, its the highest order belief that humans have - it could be capitalism, or communism, or other things. our highest order beliefs are a hinge proposition (wittgenstein term) which presupposes what our thoughts and perceptions even are

there is more about this here: https://livingopposites.substack.com/p/the-god-image-as-regulatory-architecture

for me, my core problem was that my god image - a god as all loving - did not match up with my perception of reality. with an updated god image containing totality, my perception of reality and my god image do no longer clash, which for me makes reality easier to inhabit (although it is still difficult)

this doesn't mean being evil or being a predator, there are structural reasons to avoid that which don't involve fear of punishment in the afterlife

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977619)

but im not following. are you saying "god is evil" or that "my god image is evil."

i think you're saying "the world makes more sense to me if i believe god is evil." which is a weak claim. sense-making isn't a standard of truth afaict

if i had to put a read on this, i'd say you're making a social critique, wherein you don't think what other people call "evil" is really evil. So you construct this elaborate metaphysics to avoid having to hold the position that what you are and what you believe is heterodox.

it seems like the whole jung thing is a detour to justify this to yourself, and there is something more substantive ("evil" to others, but true to you) waiting to happen

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977626)

if or when one sees reality this way, then the "evil" of the world is not some monstrous denial or rejection of god, it is *contained within a god image of totality itself* - which in many ways is more horrifying than atheism or evil existing as simply free will

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977636)

the point of an updated god image is it dramatically increases energy flow and efficiency for those whose god image and perception of reality are not synched. furthermore, as the world continues its descent into neoliberal feudalism hell - which will get much worse - more and more people will cross the threshold where their existing god image will be somatically pressured into duress. this is who the work is directed at

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977664)

you've thrown out a lot of wrong suppositions about my perspective ITT instead of keeping an open mind and reading things

i support myself with money

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977673)

when god do evil stuff i sad and when god good i happy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49978072)

ecclesiastes is really quite subversive re: authority which is why they had to affix some lame trite conclusion on at the end, its a wonder that rabbinical authorities included it in the official corpus

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977547)

yahweh is somethign else entirely

he uses differnet names throughut it, i wrote this in taht other poast, the haval hevalim thing being teh 6 days of creation under the demiurge/elohim

he's lamenting how sps the elohim creation is

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49977568)

"it is a much better work than either of those groups could produce" i agree with you that it is to me the most resonant book of either the OT or NT

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879461&forum_id=2̃#49978047)